Fort Worth weekly gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-02-25
The Evidence All In and the Lawyers
Argue the Case Before the In
yestigating Committee.
Attorney General HOgg Bakes Strong
Speech in Presenting the Case
for the State OF Texas.
Messrs Davis and Walton for the Defense
Make Mastery Arguments and Ex-
pound Impeachment Law.


to hear the argument of the state and
law ard the facts bearing on the case.
Quite a number of spectators were
present, and among them several
ladies'.
Acknowledgement Hogg opened the case
by arraigning Judge Willis on the follow
ing charges touching his conduct as
Judge
/. They were collusive, fraudulent and
farcical.
,. They were irregular and invalid as
TO the defendants, but estopped the
state.
The Judge was responsible for them,
for he was the supreme power in charge,
and as such. if he knew, he
was corrupt; If he did not know,
then, he was guilty of criminal
negligence. For the former ne was i'm
peachable for high crime, for the latter
he would be guilty Of an official INSIDE
meapor. In support of these charges
Attorney General Hogg read ON many
cases in the common law, the Supreme
courts and the provisions of the COnstltu
ton and statute laws Of the state. He
then took up the evidence and fOrcibly
brought out the strong points, referring
to the grand jurY's actions, the trial Of
tie cases after Indictment, and ell the
points heretofore published in THE GA
zETTE.
Judge jim Davis opened the case for
the defense by reading several aU,hori-
ties on the restrictions to be placed on
the right OF Impeachment under the pro
visions of the constitution. he then
engaged in an elaborate argument
or the failure OF the
evidence to make out case against Judge
Willis, claiming that the acts Of Others
could not be used by implication to pre-
fer charges against his ciiert.
Msior Walton then concluded the az
gumt nj on behalf of the defense in an elo-
quent and forcible speech Of about three
and one-half hours. He called attention
to the Importance of the case, that the
impeachment law OF Texas was unlike
any law OF the United States or any state.
They laid down the causes of impesch-
ment, but the constitution of Texas only
said that the power of impeachment was
vested in the House of Representatives
He said that Impeachment only extended
to removal from office, but after he was
removed he could be indicted
end tried. He said there
are three modes of impeachment, to wit:
Trn lawyers can prefer charges, and he
shall be tried before the Supreme court;
he can be dismissed ont Of office by the
two houses of the Legislature, and then
the mode as LAID down in the present
proceedings. He told the committee that
it was only their duty to see if there was
any cause of impeachment, and present
them to the House of Representatives.
They could not prefer articles of i'm
peachment themselves. He then cited
section OF the penal law, that no man be
held to answer for 4 crime that is not
defined and made punishable by the
statute law. Then if it is true
that defendant must be sub
iect to Indictment under the
law before he Can be lmpeached, your
labOrs are at al end as soon as you have
heard the Attorney Generals last ergu-
menr, because no crimes subject to in
dictment have been proven against Judge
Willis. BE then read from the case of
Lord Melville before the English Parlia
ment, who was acquitted because the
crimes alleged against him were not pun
ishable Under tle laws Of England. In
pe6cnment was only another means of
Furnishing men for violating laws, and all
trials and examinations of committees
must be governed by rules laid down, for
courts of impeachment are courts OF asst
resort, and we are forced to the common
Law for presidents. He then read from an
opinion of Daniel Webster where it
was held that the foundation
Of Impeachment must be based on viola
ton OF the provisions of some known
law. He paid an eloquent compliment to
the legal wisdom Of Mr.. Webster, and
asked il the Attorney General could, in
thefaCe of SUCH authority, take the posi-
ton that he did. He then claimed that
Judge willis could not be impeacheG for
anything hat he had done before his re-
election TO the office By the people, citing
an authority that held that when man
was reelected to an Office it was evidence
that he was not guilty, for there was no
higher authority than the people. He re-
ferred to the case OF Mr.. Belknap, the Sec
rotary of War, who resigned and be-
came q private citizen and then
no charges of impeachment could
| be brought against him. Reviewing the
points made by the Attorney General up
| on the evidence ne claimed that after the
grand jury was organized the Judge was
a. powerless to interfere with them as
any other lawyer of his court-reading
the law governing the duties of grand
Jurors. Touching the agreement Of evil
| denCe by the attorneys in the Enclosure
cases, he rad a decision from Judge
Hemphlll that favored An agreement Of
| facts in civil cases, aid could not see any
| reason why the same rule could not be
| followed in misdemeanor cases where The
verdict was not one of Imprisonment.
| Referring to the evidence OF Wood
man, who said that he had
agreed that the jury might not bring
! in verdict assessing Imprisonment as
3 part of the punishment, that It placed
J the defendants in the attitude OF being
| allowed under the Law to Gppear By coUu-
! sci, he claimed that Goodnight and
| others, who had lands inClosed mad not
! violated the law because they had bid in
! the land and offered the land board 6
/ cents per acre lease money, and that
there was a case appealed from Judge
Willis court growing out Of the affair
which the Supreme court had not the
courage to decide, and until q decision
! was made they had a right to hold the
lands. He wound up his argument by
paying high compliment or Judge Willis
as an honest and upright judge, and said
nothing had been proven to criminate
him in any particular.
! At!orney-General Hogg began his clos